Jason Young to get new trial #4

[Madeleine74]

Neither side was limited in their questioning of Gracie. The state chose their questions, and the defense chose their questions for cross examination. However, given the intense and obsessive focus on Gracie on this forum, it demonstrates how strong her testimony was. She was not the star witness, but she sure is thought that way here on WS by several. The state would have continued in prosecuting JY if they hadn't won the motion to introduce Gracie as a witness. The case did not and does not hinge on Gracie, although her testimony is corroborative. I bet the jurors didn't spend much time on Gracie or her testimony during deliberations. Not one of them mentioned her or that encounter in their comments after the trial about the evidence that made the most impact on them.

If there's a 3rd trial I don't expect to see JY take the stand. He had his one shot and failed. The first jury hung. He got caught in numerous inconsistencies, brought out in detail during trial #2 during Spivey's testimony, among others. JY was the star witness.

 

[JusticeFever]

Thanks for the link. I had listened to that before, but doing it again just reaffirmed my questions. Keith came on at eleven PM but usually showed up ten minutes or so early. According to detective Spivey who reviewed the tape of the cameras, the camera went black at 11:19:59 PM. Keith did not notice that the camera was not working until sometime after five, according to his testimony. He had to process check ins until twelve or so, then run his audit software, which took maybe forty-five minutes. He did not notice anything from 11:00:59 until he ran his audit, then from maybe a quarter til one until three or so when he made his receipt deliveries and then later when he made his newspaper deliveries. It was only after he completed those deliveries that he noticed that the camera was black on the monitor. It is something that just bothers me a bit.

Then he was observant enough afterwards to notice the exit door "propped open" by a rock. Makes a person wonder.

What makes me wonder even more is why Jason would pick the Hampton in if he was planning on making a flying trip back to Raleigh. He had stayed at that Inn before, if I remember correctly anf knew that there were cameras. There were/are four or more motels there which have rooms that open to the outside without having to go in front of a camera, or a lobby, or anything. No suspicious camera meddling. His alibia was always the distance anyway.
You know, it is possible that Jason actually slept at the Hampton Innn Hillsville that night!!!!

Glenn

Glenn

I would have to re-listen about the cameras more, but his testimony that he went to Jason's room twice during his shift, and never saw the door open or ajar, even after putting a newspaper on the doorknob doesn't make sense.

And, the timing of the last camera........ LE wants JY in King, NC at 5:17 with an approx 45 minute drive back to the hotel, I can see how they went this way, but what they didn't figure that it is almost a 2 hour drive from Raleigh to King,(120 miles) making the time JY left Raleigh closer to 3:15 am. So, the window of time just keeps getting scrunched tighter and tighter, even if JY arrived back in Raleigh at 2:45 am, it now makes the time JY had down to just 30 minutes!!!

It makes perfect sense why they checked airports, according to Det. Brent David, they were having difficulty covering the time , distance and mileage......they wanted to see if Jason rented a plane!

 

[citygirl]

Neither side was limited in their questioning of Gracie. The state chose their questions, and the defense chose their questions for cross examination. However, given the intense and obsessive focus on Gracie on this forum, it demonstrates how strong her testimony was. She was not the star witness, but she sure is thought that way here on WS by several. The state would have continued in prosecuting JY if they hadn't won the motion to introduce Gracie as a witness. The case did not and does not hinge on Gracie, although her testimony is corroborative. I bet the jurors didn't spend much time on Gracie or her testimony during deliberations. Not one of them mentioned her or that encounter in their comments after the trial about the evidence that made the most impact on them.

If there's a 3rd trial I don't expect to see JY take the stand. He had his one shot and failed. The first jury hung. He got caught in numerous inconsistencies, brought out in detail during trial #2 during Spivey's testimony, among others. JY was the star witness.

As always a great post. Gracie is an easy target, isn't she? I loved her simplicity, purity and lack of veneer. I'm guessing Judge Donald Stephens felt the same way. He recognized those qualities in Gracie, IMO. A good judge of character after all his years on the bench.
As for the defendant taking the stand again? NO WAY, IMO. Ain't gonna happen in the words of a long time supporter ( wish he was here adding to the discussion). Staunch supporter but a loveable guy. (to me, not to many others!) MOO.

 

[JusticeFever]

No one is attacking Gracie personally, just her testimony and her inability to describe JY without help. That and the fact she got a lot of stuff wrong and I found her to be horribly confused, which apparently so did LE, or there would have been an immediate arrest.

Had Gracie's id been stronger or more believable, JY would have been taken into custody, for probable cause, that same week.

There are also discrepancies in Gracie's testimony from Trial to Trial. She claims the regular customer suddenly became a news delivery person, she claims the gas pumps were turned off at 9M, when it gets dark (in Nov, it gets dark closer to 6-7: pm)later, she claims she was the one who turned off the pumps when she comes to work at 11M....She says there were cameras in the store that didn't work, and then later she claims there were never any cameras.

She says JY was the only customer in the store @ 5:27 am, that is not even remotely true.
Other transactions were made by customers just a minute apart.

There is no record of her shift being over $5.00, and,she never told anyone anything.

The list goes on.........

 

[SStarr33]

No one is attacking Gracie personally, just her testimony and her inability to describe JY without help. That and the fact she got a lot of stuff wrong and I found her to be horribly confused, which apparently so did LE, or there would have been an immediate arrest.

Had Gracie's id been stronger or more believable, JY would have been taken into custody, for probable cause, that same week.

There are also discrepancies in Gracie's testimony from Trial to Trial. She claims the regular customer suddenly became a news delivery person, she claims the gas pumps were turned off at 9M, when it gets dark (in Nov, it gets dark closer to 6-7: pm)later, she claims she was the one who turned off the pumps when she comes to work at 11M....She says there were cameras in the store that didn't work, and then later she claims there were never any cameras.

She says JY was the only customer in the store @ 5:27 am, that is not even remotely true.
Other transactions were made by customers just a minute apart.

There is no record of her shift being over $5.00, and,she never told anyone anything.

The list goes on.........

JF, you are my hero. You have the patience of a saint and I have none

 

[JusticeFever]

JF, you are my hero. You have the patience of a saint and I have none

Thanks, Starr, It's better to deal with just the facts in these cases.

 

[Glenn101]

Which is why the defense should have GRILLED Gracie.

I don't think that grilling her would have helped very much. I think that the defense in the next trial will have to point out things to the jury about her testimony that does not add up. Such as her description of Jason as being "a little taller" than her five feet and that he had maybe a little hair; the fact that she could provide no description of anything else about him such as his shirt and pants etc. Also they could raise the point that she was handling several cash purchases at the same time that the person at the pumps would have been leaving, and the exact fifteen dollar gas receipt when the pumps were supposedly set for twenty. The defense also needs to educate the jury on the proper way to present a potential witness with photographs in order to prevent leading the witness. The rules were not codified until 2007, but the principles have been known and used for decades. A single picture is used when an investigator wants to finger a particular suspect.

Those on this forum who have been defending Gracie have never answered those problem areas. They only reaffirm their belief that Gracie was sincere, which is not an issue. There have been a lot of wrongful convictions based upon sincerely mistaken witness identification. This includes one story where a woman memorized every detail of a rapist's features to be ensure that she would be able to recognize him no matter what, and she still fingered the wrong man.

Glenn

 

[Cherry]

Yes and he will say it all again when he sentences him again to LWOP. I will b looking fwd to it.

 

[Cherry]

No problem we will play his testimony in parts again to the jury. Just like last time. Looking fwd to that as well.
he has already hung himself, several times in fact!

 

[SteelerGirl43]

No defense attorney worth their salt would stoop to that, IMO. Huge mistake.

Actually they do..... But hey its no different than what the state did to CB....

 

[SteelerGirl43]

No one is attacking Gracie personally, just her testimony and her inability to describe JY without help. That and the fact she got a lot of stuff wrong and I found her to be horribly confused, which apparently so did LE, or there would have been an immediate arrest.

Had Gracie's id been stronger or more believable, JY would have been taken into custody, for probable cause, that same week.

There are also discrepancies in Gracie's testimony from Trial to Trial. She claims the regular customer suddenly became a news delivery person, she claims the gas pumps were turned off at 9M, when it gets dark (in Nov, it gets dark closer to 6-7: pm)later, she claims she was the one who turned off the pumps when she comes to work at 11M....She says there were cameras in the store that didn't work, and then later she claims there were never any cameras.

She says JY was the only customer in the store @ 5:27 am, that is not even remotely true.
Other transactions were made by customers just a minute apart.

There is no record of her shift being over $5.00, and,she never told anyone anything.

The list goes on.........

Exactly.. No one had a problem when it was done to CB....

 

[SteelerGirl43]

It's possible they they were not allowed, I don't know if there were any limitations in what they could or not ask her about her past such as her childhood accident, brain injury, or memory problems....

Cindy Beaver was treated horribly.


JMO

She sure was and the anti JY people have no problem with that... But that doesn't surprise me one bit..

 

[SteelerGirl43]

Impeaching witness testimony is the right of each side, state & defense. Some attorneys are nice and gentle and others, not so much. It's up to the attorney to determine their courtroom cross-exam demeanor within the rules of that judge's courtroom.

Aggressive direct or cross examination is not unusual in a courtroom. For a perfect example of this check out video of Juan Martinez of AZ, the prosecutor of Jodi Arias, an ADA who is an absolute pitbull on all witnesses, even his own. He makes every other prosecutor look like a gentle lamb in comparison. For another example watch video of former prosecutor Kelly Siegler (of TX). I don't think she lost many cases, if any.



In the end the jury decides who's credible, who's not. Hoping for witnesses to be 'attacked' implies getting to the truth is less important than cheering a team.

Juan is a pitbull with everyone like you said..... And as far as team Im not on any team..This is no game to me.. So I don't cheer for either side.. I cheer for justice to be served .. And EVERYONE to be treated the same.... And to me IMO justice hasn't been served...... Also attacking CB and treating her like they did is just down right awful....

 

[Madeleine74]

Juan is a pitbull with everyone like you said..... And as far as team Im not on any team..This is no game to me.. So I don't cheer for either side.. I cheer for justice to be served .. And EVERYONE to be treated the same.... And to me IMO justice hasn't been served...... Also attacking CB and treating her like they did is just down right awful....

So you don't have a problem when an attorney is aggressive like a pitbull (some might even describe J.M. as terribly rude) as long as said attorney is like that with almost everyone (like Juan M)?

That makes absolutely no sense.

Those who have a problem with attorneys styles should probably not watch trials because there are a lot of aggressive attorneys in the world, ones far more aggressive than anyone I've seen local NC cases.

This "horrible" treatment of CB... what exactly made this treatment "horrible?" Was this done in the courtroom during testimony? I don't remember anyone yelling at CB. Please specify what this "horrible" and "terrible" treatment consisted of.

 

[Madeleine74]

Me too.. I hope they rip her to shreds.. A good lawyer would.... Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.... :great:

You don't consider this rooting for a side? With the laughing icon to illustrate how funny you think this would be if another witness was "ripped to shreds?" If there are not sides and no rooting for sides, then who is "they" who are desired to rip Gracie to shreds? Not a game. Riiiight.

The obsession with Gracie and focus on how she is treated by the defense or "should" be treated has nothing to do with truth or justice. It's about revenge -- specifically a stated desire for one witness to be attacked because of the perceived style of cross examination of another witness (a defense witness). An emotional and immature tit for tat to feel better, IMO.

 

[oenophile]

You don't consider this rooting for a side? With the laughing icon to illustrate how funny you think this would be if another witness was "ripped to shreds?" If there are not sides and no rooting for sides, then who is "they" who are desired to rip Gracie to shreds? Not a game. Riiiight.

The obsession with Gracie and focus on how she is treated by the defense or "should" be treated has nothing to do with truth or justice. It's about revenge -- specifically a stated desire for one witness to be attacked because of the perceived style of cross examination of another witness (a defense witness). An emotional and immature tit for tat to feel better, IMO.

I actually agree with this. Gracie is as much a victim in this as anyone. It shouldn't be a matter of ripping her to shreds, but rather sufficiently determining how much of her testimony is accurate and how much of it is inaccurate due to memory issues, police suggestion and misplaced loyalties.

 

[citygirl]

No one is attacking Gracie personally, just her testimony and her inability to describe JY without help. That and the fact she got a lot of stuff wrong and I found her to be horribly confused, which apparently so did LE, or there would have been an immediate arrest.

Had Gracie's id been stronger or more believable, JY would have been taken into custody, for probable cause, that same week.

There are also discrepancies in Gracie's testimony from Trial to Trial. She claims the regular customer suddenly became a news delivery person, she claims the gas pumps were turned off at 9M, when it gets dark (in Nov, it gets dark closer to 6-7: pm)later, she claims she was the one who turned off the pumps when she comes to work at 11M....She says there were cameras in the store that didn't work, and then later she claims there were never any cameras.

She says JY was the only customer in the store @ 5:27 am, that is not even remotely true.
Other transactions were made by customers just a minute apart.

There is no record of her shift being over $5.00, and,she never told anyone anything.

The list goes on.........

BBM. Really? Was it not you that hoped she would be attacked and that you would love to know more about her? Post 1033.
Then in post 1038 you questioned her marital status and name changes?

Sounds personal to me, with all due respect. MOO.

 

[citygirl]

Actually they do..... But hey its no different than what the state did to CB....

I meant specifically in this trial with this witness. I didn't see any fireworks in either trial. In fact, I didn't think the state was hard on CB. Did they question her? Of course they did. As Madeline posted , it is up to the jury to measure the veracity of each witness. Nothing that is opined here matters. It's all on the jurors. MOO.

 

[citygirl]

She sure was and the anti JY people have no problem with that... But that doesn't surprise me one bit..

Curious as to which of the anti-JY people have ever wished that a witness be "torn to shreds"(your words) on the stand?

 

[citygirl]

You don't consider this rooting for a side? With the laughing icon to illustrate how funny you think this would be if another witness was "ripped to shreds?" If there are not sides and no rooting for sides, then who is "they" who are desired to rip Gracie to shreds? Not a game. Riiiight.

The obsession with Gracie and focus on how she is treated by the defense or "should" be treated has nothing to do with truth or justice. It's about revenge -- specifically a stated desire for one witness to be attacked because of the perceived style of cross examination of another witness (a defense witness). An emotional and immature tit for tat to feel better, IMO.

This post bears repeating. Good analysis.